Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, G. Arul, a fruit shop owner near Ranganathan Street, opposite Mambalam Railway Station, T.Nagar, Chennai, filed a Writ Petition (Criminal) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove his name from the History Sheet (H.S.No.21 of 2022) maintained by the 2nd respondent police. The petitioner was falsely implicated in Crime No.970 of 2013 for offences under Sections 120(b), 148 read with 109, 341 read with 109, 307 read with 109, 506 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was acquitted by the XVIII Additional Sessions Court, Chennai on 19.03.2019. Despite the acquittal and no further criminal activity, his name was included in the History Sheet at the instance of superior officers to harass him and restrict his movements. He was compelled to attend the police station routinely. He made a representation dated 08.12.2025 to the 1st respondent (District Collector) requesting removal of his name, but it was not considered. The court, after hearing submissions, noted that the petitioner had been acquitted and there was no material to show any criminal activity after acquittal. The court directed the 4th respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Police, suo-motu impleaded) to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks, and if the representation is allowed, to remove the petitioner's name from the History Sheet. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - History Sheet - Removal of Name - Police Regulations - Petitioner was acquitted in Crime No.970 of 2013 and had no further criminal activity - Court held that retaining name in History Sheet without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity amounts to harassment - Directed removal of name from History Sheet within four weeks (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's name should be removed from the History Sheet maintained by police after his acquittal in the sole criminal case and in the absence of any subsequent criminal activity
Final Decision
The court directed the 4th respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Police) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.12.2025 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. If the representation is allowed, the petitioner's name shall be removed from the History Sheet. The petition was disposed of.
Law Points
- History Sheet maintenance requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
- not mere acquittal
- police cannot harass by retaining name after acquittal without fresh criminal involvement
- representation must be considered within time frame
